Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bundesservice Telekommunikation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bundesservice Telekommunikation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined A7 speedy - brought to AfD instead as we are effectively dealing with an article about something that may or may not even exist. Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not certain this even existed, beyond having a phone number and e-mail listed in the federal database with meaningless boilerplate language saying that they provide services. The whole article is basically about a medium blog post by Lilith Wittmann who found this unknown organization listed in the database, and a bit of coverage on the deletion discussion on the German Wikipedia and some media coverage on questions to the government on whether this organization exists or existed. The questions were answered by stating this organization was never funded and by removing it from the data base. It is possible this is a front name used by some employees of a security service under the ministry of interior, like Bundesstelle für Fernmeldestatistik was used until 2014, but this is not certain. This fails the 10 year test, and sources that exist lack any depth on the organization itself, they just cover Wittmann's queries and lack of any meaningful response or information on this possible organization. Pikavoom ^Talk 11:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So hang on now. We have this obscure blogger (with all of 163 followers before this flap) alleging that there is this Sooper Sekrit agency doing Sooper Sekrit things, where she has no evidence of its activities -- never mind none of its existence -- save for her own speculation. (Never mind that her blogpost ends with her talking about this nifty new tool she's developing to track such agencies down ... stay tuned!). We have a single magazine article about her finding nothing, and the magazine likewise finding nothing. Whoa. Stop the presses. Everything else are primary sources. This is an embarrassing enough failure of the GNG without it being the creation of an editor with exactly 36 mainspace edits (most of which are on a cryptocurrency article), who is surprisingly ready to call "troll" on anyone who opposes it [1].
Whether there's anything to be found or not I leave to that blogger, who plainly has a lot of time on her hands. That her quixotic crusade merits its own Wikipedia article, ummmm ... no. This is one of the very rare WP:V fails, but the GNG requires that the subject of an article receives "significant coverage." None of these sources provide any coverage to the subject at all. Ravenswing 13:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - I couldn't find anything else, so fails WP:V per Ravenswing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty fascinating stuff, either a hoax by the German federal government or a secret service thing. The Stern article is a RS about the affair, but just one. Draftify to see if this gets picked up by more media or not. —Kusma (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose draftication. The whole premise of an article is that it is about the subject. In this case, there's quite literally nothing known. The article here isn't about "Bundesservice Telekommunikation," it's a coatrack created by a now-indeffed SPA about Wittmann's frankly quixotic fishing expedition. Were Wittman remotely notable in her own right, there'd be a place for the information in an article about her, but she's not, and there isn't. Ravenswing 14:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm supporting to move to draft. We simply do not know whether this is a real thing, a hoax, or something secret, so we don't have verifiable information other than "something is wrong" so far. As a news story it is not notable yet, but could become notable soon if a handful of investigative journalists start working on it and discover in what sense this exists or not. The story seems more likely to be notable than Wittmann herself. If it turns out there is nothing more to say than what we have now, then this can die quietly in draft space. I do not understand why you claim the original author is a SPA. Their personal attacks do not look good, but I don't think an indef was necessary. It is interesting that this was asked about by Tilo Jung of Jung & Naiv [de] in the Bundespressekonferenz; you removed a mention of this apparently because it is hosted on YouTube. (It seems to be one of the uses allowed by WP:RSPYT). Just because the original author can't play nicely with others doesn't mean their content contributions have to be faulty. —Kusma (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, even if such further coverage will emerge it more likely to be relevant to whichever German government agency Bundesservice Telekommunikation was a front for. This article is either a bizarre database error, or a front name for some other organization or department. Pikavoom ^Talk 15:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, I claim the original author was a SPA because this is one of the two things the SPA did on Wikipedia; whether you yourself feel an indef was necessary isn't relevant. Should a genuine news story arise -- as opposed to Wittman's claims that Something! Must! Exist! -- then an article can be created, but right now this is something a blogger dreamed up one day. This blows holes through WP:V AND WP:OR AND WP:WEBHOST, and draftifying it would throw WP:CRYSTAL into the mix as well, speculating absent a lick of evidence that Something! Might! Exist! Wittman can try to bolster her somewhat threadbare follower count any way that seems to her good; we don't need to be a coatrack for her efforts. Ravenswing 17:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.